How Equitable Is Access to Opportunities and Basic Services Considering the Impact of the Level of Service? the Case of Santiago, Chile
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
How Equitable is Access to Opportunities and Basic Services Considering the Impact of the Level of Service? The Case of Santiago, Chile Discussion15 Paper 2016 • 15 Ricardo Hurtubia, Juan Carlos Muñoz and Ignacio Tiznado-Aitken Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Department of Transport Engineering and Logistics, Santiago, Chile How equitable is access to opportunities and basic services considering the impact of the level of service? The case of Santiago, Chile Discussion Paper No. 2016-15 Prepared for the Roundtable on Income inequality, social inclusion and mobility (4-5 April 2016; Paris, France) Ignacio Tiznado-Aitken Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Department of Transport Engineering and Logistics, Santiago, Chile Juan Carlos Muñoz Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Department of Transport Engineering and Logistics, Santiago, Chile Ricardo Hurtubia Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, School of Architecture & Department of Transport Engineering and Logistics, Santiago, Chile April 2016 The International Transport Forum The International Transport Forum is an intergovernmental organisation with 57 member countries. It acts as a think tank for transport policy and organises the Annual Summit of transport ministers. ITF is the only global body that covers all transport modes. The ITF is politically autonomous and administratively integrated with the OECD. The ITF works for transport policies that improve peoples’ lives. Our mission is to foster a deeper understanding of the role of transport in economic growth, environmental sustainability and social inclusion and to raise the public profile of transport policy. The ITF organises global dialogue for better transport. We act as a platform for discussion and pre-negotiation of policy issues across all transport modes. We analyse trends, share knowledge and promote exchange among transport decision-makers and civil society. The ITF’s Annual Summit is the world’s largest gathering of transport ministers and the leading global platform for dialogue on transport policy. The Members of the Forum are: Albania, Armenia, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China (People’s Republic of), Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States. International Transport Forum 2 rue André Pascal F-75775 Paris Cedex 16 [email protected] www.itf-oecd.org ITF Discussion Papers ITF Discussion Papers make economic research, commissioned or carried out in-house at ITF, available to researchers and practitioners. They describe preliminary results or research in progress by the author(s) and are published to stimulate discussion on a broad range of issues on which the ITF works. Any findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the International Transport Forum or the OECD. Neither the OECD, ITF nor the authors guarantee the accuracy of any data or other information contained in this publication and accept no responsibility whatsoever for any consequence of their use. This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. Comments on Discussion Papers are welcome. Tiznado-Aitken, Muñoz, Hurtubia - How equitable is access to opportunities and basic services considering the impact of the level of service? Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank for the support provided by the Center for Sustainable Urban Development (CONICYT/FONDAP 15110020) and the Bus Rapid Transit Centre of Excellence founded by the Volvo Research and Educational Foundation. ITF Discussion Paper 2016-15 — © OECD/ITF 2016 3 Tiznado-Aitken, Muñoz, Hurtubia - How equitable is access to opportunities and basic services considering the impact of the level of service? Abstract Cities face the daily challenge of providing people with access to different activities through their public transport systems. Despite its importance, there is little research on accessibility that focuses on the use of this mode and even less accounting for the impact of level of service (i.e. travel time, waiting time, reliability, comfort and transfers). Thus, the aim of this paper is to propose a methodology to determine how access to opportunities and basic services through public transport systems is distributed in cities, and how the perceived level of service decreases or accentuates the existing gaps. Three indicators are calculated for Santiago based on data from public transport operations, smart card validations and georeferenced information: walking accessibility to public transport stops considering the quality of urban furniture, safety and environment; connectivity provided by the system in each area to the rest of the city considering the level of service through a measure of generalised time (in-vehicle time); and a measure of attractiveness of the destinations, based on number of trips attracted by purpose. The methodology is applied to a case study in Santiago, a highly unequal and segregated city. The results show that the accessibility gap between disadvantaged areas and more wealthy neighborhoods of the city increases if the user's perception of level of service for public transport is considered. We show that the three proposed indicators provide different dimensions of accessibility suggesting how and where to intervene to effectively improve equity. Thus, the indicators could be used to assist the prioritisation and focus of investment plans, the design process of urban policies or transport infrastructure and become a key input for planners and decision-makers. 4 ITF Discussion Paper 2016-15 — © OECD/ITF 2016 Tiznado-Aitken, Muñoz, Hurtubia - How equitable is access to opportunities and basic services considering the impact of the level of service? Table of Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 6 Context: Santiago, Chile .................................................................................................................. 7 Land use, segregation and inequality .............................................................................................. 7 Transantiago and modal share evolution ...................................................................................... 10 Accessibility measures .................................................................................................................... 12 Physical Accessibility Index (PAI) ............................................................................................... 13 Public Transport Index (PTI) ........................................................................................................ 16 Attractiveness Land Use Index (ALUI) ........................................................................................ 18 Case study ....................................................................................................................................... 18 PAI results..................................................................................................................................... 19 PTI results ..................................................................................................................................... 21 ALUI results ................................................................................................................................. 23 Discussion, conclusions and future work ...................................................................................... 24 References ....................................................................................................................................... 26 Figures Figure 1. Activity centre evolution. .................................................................................................... 8 Figure 2. Car ownership in Santiago .................................................................................................. 9 Figure 3. Income distribution in Santiago (left) and accessibility to employment using public transport (2012) (right)........................................................................................................ 9 Figure 4. Modal share evolution in Santiago, Chile ......................................................................... 11 Figure 5. Santiago’s public transport network.................................................................................. 12 Figure 6. Differences between accessibility impedance functions: Richards and Negative Exponential ....................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 7. Route from San Miguel (left) and from Las Condes (right) to Santiago Centro through walk and Metro (Line 2 and Line 1, respectively) ...........................................................